Wednesday, December 07, 2005


Blogs are an interesting development in political discussion and rhetoric. Because most are anonymous they allow posters and commentors wide latitude in not only expressing opinions, but the apparent desire to express those opinions in the basest of forms. The language is atrocious. The name calling vicious and perpetual.

Blogs are also interesting in the sense that blogs expose certain hypocrisies vividly. In the past I’ve posted comments as a conservative commentor with a healthy dose of sarcasm on the liberal blog I expressed my opinion. Since the blog was 99.9 per cent liberal commentors, whenever I posted the fiberal herdist element would go wild.

Name calling liberally mixed with profanity would come first, then questions about my linage and family. Most often the entire blogging fiberal Cranky contingent would ignore the man whose blog it was and respond to me. Why? because I was the only one expressing a different opinion. They finally had someone to rail against. In effect, Cranky would lose control of his own blog. He has the Bill Clinton addiction. Like Bill, Cranky is addicted to sycophantic adulation. And, like Clinton, anything that disturbs it is quashed.

What was also interesting, there was almost never any effort to refute my arguments, only wailing and gnashing of keyboard.

Cranky’s response was typically fiberal: censor all my comments immediately. I accused him of censoring several of my comments which he denied at first then admitted. In other words he lied. He, of course, frequently castigates the “government” for censoring, but it’s OK for him to censor...if that’s not typical fiberalism on display I don’t know what is.

Cranky was perplexed. He ran a poll of his commentors, another liberal mainstay, and in a ten to one vote, other commentors voted to allow my comments to continue. The one vote against was Cranky’s. Then Cranky made a scientific mistake in his post which I quickly pounced on. He immediately censored or removed my comment from his blog because it made him look so stupid.

He ignored his poll and began censoring all my comments. Just think about that, he demands free speech while denying my free speech.

But the truth is, that when I commented, he lost control of his blog. It became all about my comments, not his loony tune diatribes and that is the real reason he censors my comments. He can’t handle the truth or anyone that reveals his stupidity.

One telling email, not posted on his blog, revealed his true nature:

to me
Dec 6, 2005 (19 hours ago)
"Why do you bother, I'm going to delete you every time. I've said so in public. I let everyone else post - just not you. I do not like you. Feel free to waste your time, but you will never have comment that alst (sic) longer than a few minutes."

He claims in his email that he said publically he would censor me, but that was only after I forced him to admit that he was censoring me in the first place. He doesn’t like petty. I find it so telling about him that he ignored a 90 per cent poll against censoring my comments. At least Clinton religiously followed the advise of the poll “Gods.”



Anonymous said...

NewsGnome - You are certain a genius when it comes to writing down things as they really are - in the blog world. This one was worth the whole read..Celebration Lead

Anonymous said...

The thruth is that I have yet to see a liberal just once admit something positive. It's that "Sky is falling mentality"

NewGnome said...

Well, TOS, they just say it in a different way and they love saying it..."Everything is positively terrible." Which of course makes them giddy with happiness because they think
bad news and doom and gloom will get them reelected and return them to power. NG